Georgetown EIW 2014 Forum

[Anonymous User]

If a firm interviews for multiple cities, but only allows one interview, does GULC lump everyone together who bids on that single firm, regardless of their geographic preference, or do they chop bids up by city? Asking because I see multiple lines for firms in Symplicity (one for each office), but on the Bid Stats pdf they group stuff together.

Actually sometimes it's grouped together, sometimes not. Also for participating firms not listed on the grade history sheet, we just have to ask OCS for the data?

How are interviews allotted? Snake draft like fantasy football?

--Median Mary

[hichvichwoh]

If a firm interviews for multiple cities, but only allows one interview, does GULC lump everyone together who bids on that single firm, regardless of their geographic preference, or do they chop bids up by city? Asking because I see multiple lines for firms in Symplicity (one for each office), but on the Bid Stats pdf they group stuff together.

Actually sometimes it's grouped together, sometimes not. Also for participating firms not listed on the grade history sheet, we just have to ask OCS for the data?

How are interviews allotted? Snake draft like fantasy football?

--Median Mary

it depends on how it is listed. some firms have the same people interview for every office, others will have the offices interview separately but request that you not interview with multiple offices, and instead just tell your interviewer which other offices you'd be interested in.

[Anonymous User]

Ok, so for firms whose interview slots are allotted for the whole group of cities they are interviewing for, as opposed to being divided up by city - for example, Bryan Cave has 63 slots for ten cities - effectively, everyone who wants a non-DC office has to compete in bidding against the people who do?

[dead head]

Actually sometimes it's grouped together, sometimes not. Also for participating firms not listed on the grade history sheet, we just have to ask OCS for the data?

--Median Mary

Career Services isn't going to release concrete data that they haven't already released in the grade sheet. They may give you vague confirmation that you are competitive (or not), but that's about the extent of it. I wouldn't place too much stock in the grade sheets, anyway, as many/most of the data points they are based on reflect the harsher pre-2009 curve and a significantly better legal market.

If you are at median, I hope you are actively pursuing other leads, and are prepared for the possibility you may get only a handful of screeners depending on how and where you bid. Based on the last few years I believe they're now saying that those with a GPA of less than 3.4 only have a 20% chance of landing biglaw, or something like that. Start making cover letters and mailing lists now.

[hashashin]

Based on the last few years I believe they're now saying that those with a GPA of less than 3.4 only have a 20% chance of landing biglaw, or something like that. Start making cover letters and mailing lists now.

Sorry, but...who is saying that?

[Nebby]

GPA data on the grade sheet is from post-2009 change.

[dead head]

Based on the last few years I believe they're now saying that those with a GPA of less than 3.4 only have a 20% chance of landing biglaw, or something like that. Start making cover letters and mailing lists now.

Sorry, but...who is saying that?

Heard it from Mitch Bailin, and he says they are pretty up-front in telling people that now. Maybe not.

[hashashin]

Not commenting on the veracity of Bailin telling students this, but the thought of Bailin telling a student with (GASP) a 3.3 this is just hilarious to me. It really does add another dimension to Bailin's marches against suicide.

[hashashin]

Also, the grading sheet would indicate (and my 1L BigLaw experience confirms) that 3.4 is probably not the minimum grade required to be panic-free.

That said, dead head's advice of mailing firms before EIW should be taken by everyone regardless of grades. Having a job before EIW has to be amazingly freeing.

[dead head]

Not commenting on the veracity of Bailin telling students this, but the thought of Bailin telling a student with (GASP) a 3.3 this is just hilarious to me. It really does add another dimension to Bailin's marches against suicide.

He was more saying that the administration as a whole—as opposed to him in particular—is very up front about this, and his comment came in response to me suggesting that students have overly optimistic perceptions of what is possible/likely, how hard they should hustle, and that the administration seems mainly interested in fostering a sense of tranquil complacence, as though everything will work out in the end. I know very little accurate information was available when I was there, but he was suggesting that things have changed. Based on the few comments I see from Georgetown students on this forum, however, I find that difficult to believe.

That said, dead head's advice of mailing firms before EIW should be taken by everyone regardless of grades. Having a job before EIW has to be amazingly freeing.

Actually getting a job before EIW would be unusual, but because the number of slots/student is so low it is important to try and get screeners through the back door. For every firm you bid on and don't get [as well as every other firm that is coming to EIW that you didn't get an interview at], you should send a letter the day after schedules come out saying how interested you are in them and how you weren't able to get them in the lottery. If they like your grades they'll fit you in after their schedule, during the breaks, or interview you at their DC office while they're in DC for EIW. I basically doubled my screeners that way, and some went straight to callbacks. Things might be slightly different now that they have preselect slots as well, but you should still be able to pick up interviews. This is probably most effective for those with strong-but-not-superstar grades, as they can't be confident of landing an offer from the dozen screeners they are likely to get at EIW, yet have the credentials to be considered by lots of firms.

[Anonymous User]

~41% of 72.4% of Georgetown grads get into 101+ attorney firms..

~50% of 72.4% of Georgetown grads get into 101+ attorney firms or clerkship

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... ends/2013/

[hashashin]

That would be ~50% of the TOTAL actually, not 50% of 72.4%.

[hashashin]

That, plus at least 13% of the PI jobs are real (i.e. if you wish to take out the school-funded jobs ENTIRELY as bad outcomes). So, I'd add those in as well as jobs that were most probably desired by those who have them.

[hashashin]

Actually getting a job before EIW would be unusual, but because the number of slots/student is so low it is important to try and get screeners through the back door. For every firm you bid on and don't get [as well as every other firm that is coming to EIW that you didn't get an interview at], you should send a letter the day after schedules come out saying how interested you are in them and how you weren't able to get them in the lottery. If they like your grades they'll fit you in after their schedule, during the breaks, or interview you at their DC office while they're in DC for EIW. I basically doubled my screeners that way, and some went straight to callbacks. Things might be slightly different now that they have preselect slots as well, but you should still be able to pick up interviews. This is probably most effective for those with strong-but-not-superstar grades, as they can't be confident of landing an offer from the dozen screeners they are likely to get at EIW, yet have the credentials to be considered by lots of firms.

That's really good advice. Much appreciated

[dead head]

That would be ~50% of the TOTAL actually, not 50% of 72.4%.

Yeah, but but state clerkships shouldn't be included in this, as only federal clerkships are that desirable/beneficial.

That, plus at least 13% of the PI jobs are real (i.e. if you wish to take out the school-funded jobs ENTIRELY as bad outcomes). So, I'd add those in as well as jobs that were most probably desired by those who have them.

Another way to look at it is that of those "employed" public service aren't able to find someone who actually wants to pay them, and are instead working for $1,000 per month (and padding Georgetown's public service stats while doing so, since stipend-eligible jobs must be in public service; it will be interesting to see how/if public service employment rates change next year given the broader eligibility for the stipend program this year). I suspect that for at least some others the allure of public service is LRAP forgiveness, as opposed to inherent desire to work in that sector: just as some who profess interest in public interest go the law firm route once they go through OCI and realize how much money they can make, others suddenly discover an interest in PI after they strike out.

[Nebby]

I think others, outside of an interest in PI, take BigGov/PI because of the work/life balance. With LRAP, IBR, PAYE, and a lot of free time.

[Anonymous User]

Based on the last few years I believe they're now saying that those with a GPA of less than 3.4 only have a 20% chance of landing biglaw, or something like that. Start making cover letters and mailing lists now.

Sorry, but...who is saying that?

This is wrong or I guess somehow last year all 10+ of my friends with 3.3 to 3.4 GPAs got biglaw jobs and are crazy outliers.

[dead head]

I think others, outside of an interest in PI, take BigGov/PI because of the work/life balance. With LRAP, IBR, PAYE, and a lot of free time.

Yes, but none of this is unique to Georgetown, and yet the school likes to try and explain its low law-firm placement on the basis of public-interest self-selection. While this theory may have some limited merit, the inability of PI-oriented folks to find jobs that pay, the low AIII clerkship rates, the low levels of clinic participation, and even the huge transfer class (do PI-oriented people really gun for transfers? Because over 15% of the graduating class are transfers) suggest this is a really bad excuse.

This is wrong or I guess somehow last year all 10+ of my friends with 3.3 to 3.4 GPAs got biglaw jobs and are crazy outliers.

I'm surprised you know the grades of all these people (and if they're all from the same section it would basically mean that you know the grades of everyone in your section who is roughly between median and top-40%, which seems kind of unlikely). But even if your information is accurate, if the vast majority of people in your section with GPAs below 3.3 didn't get biglaw it would be perfectly consistent with what I was told (if statistically improbable). At any rate, if everyone with a GPA above 3.3 could get biglaw—which appears to be what you are suggesting—then Georgetown's employment stats would be a lot rosier than they are.

[hashashin]

But what the above poster writes is perfectly consistent with the math released for the Class of 2013 (which, let's remember, was a much larger class than subsequent classes, especially the class of 2016 that will be participating in this year's EIW). FedClerk + BigLaw alone equaled 46% that year, and AT LEAST 13% of the PI kids were in NON-STIPEND PI jobs (this is why I distinguished between the 13% of PI jobs that were NOT school-financed from the 12.4% that might be...though that's probably a little bit extreme too, since some of UVA and Gtown's school-sponsored fellowships are really legitimate ways of starting PI careers). A lot of that 13% is Public Defense, JAG, Prosecution, and BigGov, which you actually can't just waltz into after striking out, as you seem to be implying.

So, assuming that 3.3 is median, yes: Just about everyone with 3.3 and above should be able to get Biglaw.

Also, comparing Georgetown's PI focus to comparable schools like Cornell or NU is absolutely ridiculous. I'd venture to bet that, if your goal was to work in PI or FedGov, there is almost NO CHANCE that you go to one of those versus Georgetown.

I really think you're severely exaggerating the complacency of Georgetown students; things may actually just be better these days (that 15% class size reduction certainly helped).

[hashashin]

Based on the last few years I believe they're now saying that those with a GPA of less than 3.4 only have a 20% chance of landing biglaw, or something like that. Start making cover letters and mailing lists now.

Sorry, but...who is saying that?

This is wrong or I guess somehow last year all 10+ of my friends with 3.3 to 3.4 GPAs got biglaw jobs and are crazy outliers.

The 2Ls (Class of 2015) people I have spoken with also say that 3.3 people are pretty safe.

[dead head]

A lot of that 13% is Public Defense, JAG, Prosecution, and BigGov, which you actually can't just waltz into after striking out, as you seem to be implying.

There's no doubt that federal gov positions are difficult to get, but there's also no way of knowing how that 13% of paid public service is broken down. If Georgetown wants to make the case that they're sending many/most of these grads into desirable public service jobs, they could release data that supports this. They don't.

So, assuming that 3.3 is median, yes: Just about everyone with 3.3 and above should be able to get Biglaw.

I actually suspect Bailin's statement better reflects reality. With 50-55% OCI placement it may be possible for everyone with a 3.3 to get biglaw, but that's not how hiring is done. The higher the grades, the less important other factors like fit, diversity, WE, and market/ties are. But if you're below a 3.4, I can easily believe that secondary factors become much more important and much more randomness is seen in hiring—and this is especially the case when you get half as many interviews at EIW as you might at Cornell or Duke. If I'm sitting on a 3.35 I'm certainly not thinking that I'm a virtual lock for biglaw, even if there's nothing wrong with the way I interview.

I would also be interested in seeing how many of the federal clerkships that the school reports are A III and how many are A I.

Also, comparing Georgetown's PI focus to comparable schools like Cornell or NU is absolutely ridiculous. I'd venture to bet that, if your goal was to work in PI or FedGov, there is almost NO CHANCE that you go to one of those versus Georgetown.

I really think you're severely exaggerating the complacency of Georgetown students; things may actually just be better these days (that 15% class size reduction certainly helped).

If your goal was to work in PI or federal government, would you go to Georgetown if you were told that there was a 50% or less chance you would be able to find a paying job? Because that's what the Dean of Career Services will say if you ask her. While students may self-select to Georgetown, that doesn't mean that the school does a particularly good job of placing all those PI-oriented individuals that end up attending. And I wouldn't be hugely surprised if NU and Cornell do OK at placing those PI-oriented students who do end up attending there, especially those who work at a firm for a few years before transitioning to government work.

You're probably right about students being less complacent these days, but I suspect there's still a fair bit of self-delusion in both the student body and the faculty.

[bsf2344]

For what its worth i've been told by 2L and 3L students that median (3.3) is solid for biglaw. Also, anecdotally it seems that either a majority or a very large minority of students have zero interest in biglaw and are attending georgetown as a means to get into government/pi work.

[dead head]

For what its worth i've been told by 2L and 3L students that median (3.3) is solid for biglaw. Also, anecdotally it seems that either a majority or a very large minority of students have zero interest in biglaw and are attending georgetown as a means to get into government/pi work.

There's so much self-selection when it comes to law students talking about grades and jobs that it's difficult to put too much stock into anecdotal evidence. People without (good) jobs tend not to talk about them too much. People around medium who strike out aren't likely to broadcast it.

Lots of people say they're interested in PI work but take biglaw if they can get it. I don't think that over 500 students go through EIW every year because they are not interested in working at firms. I don't think that in the boom years Georgetown placed 60-70% in SAs because the majority or a plurality of students saw Georgetown as a means to PI/gov. Yes, there is some self-selection to PI/gov, but I think it is vastly over-stated, and fails to explain low clerkship numbers or the huge number of graduates who fail to find paying jobs.

Maybe comparative job prospects for current students have changed significantly compared to a few years ago, but in my experience the large class size and and lack of local-market dominance has meant that Georgetown has underperformed significantly compared to other schools that its students had the credentials to attend. Employers coming to Georgetown can be, and are, more selective than at peer schools. I mean, what other peer school not only gives out top-third and top-10% cutoffs, but also top-15% cutoffs as well as the individual ranking of students within the top 5%. What does it say about how the school is viewed that some employers apparently make meaningful distinctions between the top 4% and top 2%?

I hope you're right that 3.3 is solid for biglaw, but I wouldn't bet on it (and yes, those who do bet on it and fail to extend their search beyond EIW are part of those I would describe as complacent). I'm sorry if this sounds extremely pessimistic, but I want to urge everyone with grades in this range (and above) to make their search as broad as possible lest they end up with nothing from EIW.

[laxstar1]

1) This conversation about GULC's placement numbers compared to its peer schools is SUPER interesting. It's seriously AWESOME to debate what jobs are "desirable" for the purposes of determining employment outcomes...again. Hopefully this can go on for another 3 pages on this thread, because it's SO helpful to the rising 2Ls.

2) I really don't think deadhand's GPA comment is all that controversial. 3.3 is median. 20% of the kids below a 3.4 probably includes people slightly below median. That's about what I think of GULC's numbers. If you're at median...you're 100% in the game...but whether you get a job or not is going to be a function of your bidding strategy, interviewing skills (!), non-GPA resume stuff, etc. I know it's scary to think that your grades/school isn't going to get you your big law job on a platter all on its own, but that's your reality if your median. Practice your interviewing skills, work hard on your bid list, keep your fingers crossed about the write-on, MASS MAIL (!!!!!). But you're in the ball game, and some of you will get great fucking jobs.

3) Happy to help in this thread. Will periodically check when people post bid lists and stuff. Also happy to share what I know about some of the summer programs and some of the firm reputations in general. Good luck to all of you!

[Anonymous User]

Hello laxstar1, thanks for the helpful information.
I have a couple of questions to you or any others who could chime in.

I am right in between the median and top 40% range, 3.3 to 3.4.
I want corporate in NYC.

Could anyone provide me with the name of firms that I might have a chance in?
The school´s past grade history chart doesn´t seem to match the hiring guidline that the firms indicated themselves. For instance, some firms indicate they are looking for top 10%, but the grade history show people with much lower grades got the positions. Or the firm says it wants B+, but the grade history indicates they only hired top 3rd or above.

I just want to know in general what firms are in my gpa range.


Thank you guys.